I'm a serial entrepreneur whose companies have won both Inc 500 and Best Place to Work awards. I'm also a NY Times bestselling author and speaker. My newest book is Employee Engagement 2.0. To download free chapters visit my website at www.kevinkruse.com.

What Is Leadership?

Such a simple question, and yet it continues to vex popular consultants and lay people alike. I’ve now written several books on leadership for employee engagement, and yet it occurred to me that I never actually paused to define leadership. Let’s start with what leadership is not…

Leadership has nothing to do with seniority or one’s position in the hierarchy of a company. Too many talk about a company’s leadership referring to the senior most executives in the organization. They are just that, senior executives. Leadership doesn’t automatically happen when you reach a certain pay grade. Hopefully you find it there, but there are no guarantees.

Leadership has nothing to do with titles. Similar to the point above, just because you have a C-level title, doesn’t automatically make you a “leader.” In all of my talks I stress the fact that you don’t need a title to lead. In fact, you can be a leader in your place of worship, your neighborhood, in your family, all without having a title.

Leadership has nothing to do with personal attributes. Say the word “leader” and most people thing of a domineering, take-charge charismatic individual. We often think of icons from history like General Patton or President Lincoln. But leadership isn’t an adjective. We don’t need extroverted charismatic traits to practice leadership. And those with charisma don’t automatically lead.

Leadership isn’t management. This is the big one. Leadership and management are not synonymous. You have 15 people in your downline and P&L responsibility? Good for you, hopefully you are a good manager. Good management is needed. Managers need to plan, measure, monitor, coordinate, solve, hire, fire, and so many other things. Typically, managers manage things. Leaders lead people.

So, again, what is Leadership?

Let’s see how some of the most respected business thinkers of our time define leadership, and let’s consider what’s wrong with their definitions.

Peter Drucker: “The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers.”

Really? This instance of tautology is so simplistic as to be dangerous. A new Army Captain is put in the command of 200 soldiers. He never leaves his room, or utters a word to the men and women in his unit. Perhaps routine orders are given through a subordinate. By default his troops have to “follow” orders. Is the Captain really a leader? Commander yes, leader no. Drucker is of course a brilliant thinker of modern business but his definition of leader is too simple.

Warren Bennis: “Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.”

Every spring you have a vision for a garden, and with lots of work carrots and tomatoes become a reality. Are you a leader? No, you’re a gardener. Bennis’ definition seems to have forgotten “others.”

Bill Gates: “As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others.”

This definition includes “others” and empowerment is a good thing. But to what end? I’ve seen many empowered “others” in my life, from rioting hooligans to Google workers who were so misaligned with the rest of the company they found themselves unemployed. Gates’ definition lacks the parts about goal or vision.

John Maxwell: “Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less.”

I like minimalism but this reduction is too much. A robber with a gun has “influence” over his victim. A manager has the power to fire team members which provides a lot of influence. But does this influence make a robber or a manager a leader? Maxwell’s definition omits the source of influence.

So what is leadership?

DEFINITION: Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others, towards the achievement of a goal.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Leadership is a process of social influence, which maximizes the efforts of others, towards the achievement of a goal. Spot on! Wish Condo HOA Board members were required to take some leadership classes. Most are Wanna be leaders who never achieved the authority in business they thought they deserved. To have a “title” as Pres. or Vice Pres of an HOA is their epitome of stature.

Hi Shirley, thanks for your comments. I think you and I have shared HOA board members in the past. :-) I think a big problem in the HOA board world is the people have the time to serve, aren’t necessarily the BEST people to serve. Cheers, Kevin

I’d like to submit two more quotes from people that we’ve interviewed recently:

“Don’t forget your job as a leader is to get results”. Brian Tracy.

When all is said and done you can inspire as much as you want but you have to get results. Watch Brian’s video here: http://leadersin.com/programmes/brian-tracy-don-t-forget-your-job-as-a-leader-is-to-get-results

and Tom Peters who reminds us the key attributes needed to make a great leader: http://leadersin.com/programmes/tom-peters-on-the-attributes-of-great-leaders-2

Great issue Kevin. I don’t particularly agree with yours. I have one that comes from listening to and what followers said over many years.

Listening made me realize that leadership can only be understood by knowing what followers follow. What I saw them follow is the value standards reflected in what they experience in the workplace. The vast majority of what they experience consists of the support provided by management: training, coaching, tools, parts, material, discipline, direction, information, planning, and the like.

For instance, a management that attempts to control employees with commands, goals, targets, bureaucracy, policies, and the like transmits disrespect to employees leading many employees to treat their work, their customers, each other, and their bosses with the same level of disrespect. The same occurs if management does not listen to employees enough to satisfy their need to be heard or fails to openly share information with employees. Management’s leadership is its support, no more and no less.

Thanks, Ben, think our thoughts are similar…maybe semantic differences. I think I gravitate to “social influence” as a way to distinguish a leader from a manager. I agree…I think manager and think of control. Best, Kevin

Kevin, I don’t believe it is a semantic issue. There is no way to distinguish between a leader and a manager. My point is that if the manager is responsible for people, the manager is a leader whether or not s/he realizes it or not because 95% of all people are following every minute of every day. This is a natural law no one can escape, only ignore at their own peril. People are managed by leadership because that is what they follow and the manager has no choice in this. And those people are following the value standards reflected in the manager’s actions and inactions.

It may be true that some managers are also leaders, but that’s not necessarily the norm. I believe most people think of “leaders” as those in the organization who can align people around a vision, strategy or idea and galvanize action. These leaders might exist at every level of the organization, but the ability to influence the thoughts and actions of large numbers of people – particularly to address complex problems – rests in the upper levels of the organization because only they are in a position to allocate resources. To me, the difference between a leader, a manager, and a “follower” traces the difference between vision, strategy and execution.

Sorry to disagree Ben, but managing people is not the same as leading them. A manager sets goals and makes sure that people meet them, but a leader inspires. I’ve had managers who were also leaders, but many more who were not….

Sorry, but I don’t find semantics worth your time or mine. The goal of being responsible for any resource is to get the most out of it whether it is money, machines, people, or whatever. To make the most of people one must cause them to become highly motivated, highly committed, and fully engaged so that they will throw everything they have at their work, all their natural creativity, innovation, and productivity while literally loving to come to work. No matter what you call it, that goal is the same. How you do that determines how effective you are at getting the most out of people.

This is interesting – you seem to think that there are no other forces at work on resource output than that of the resource’s manager.

What about personal pride in delivering one’s best work? I personally don’t give a damn about my manager, his boss, etc., nor the company I work for. All I care about delivering my best because I like what I do and have a semblance of pride.

What about the economy? If there aren’t a lot of oppotunities locally, one might be more focused on retaining his current position not because of his manager’s “leadership” but for fear of losing his employment.

An interesting post. I would jump on the side of Ben and say that there is no difference between a good manager and a leader. When a person is put into a management position the job is to get others to work together to produce results. Management is a leadership position and creating this distinction between the two has only served to belittle the title of manager, create another area of disagreement in companies that sorely need more collaboration and create another topic on which to sell more books.